Order — United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al. (District of Minnesota, Doc. 95)

Summary

Order filed September 29, 2022 as Doc. 95 in United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, on the Government's Motion to Designate Case as Complex Under the Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 90. The order recounts the Government's representations that the case involves a massive fraudulent scheme to obtain and misappropriate more than $250 million in federal child nutrition program funds and that the grand jury issued more than 600 subpoenas. It orders the motion GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, the case complex within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and that the period from September 27 through November 4, 2022 is excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations. It is signed s/ Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 5




                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


 United States of America,                         Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL)

               Plaintiff,

 v.                                                            ORDER

 Aimee Marie Bock et al.,

               Defendants.


       This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Designate Case

as Complex Under the Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 90.

       The Government “moves the Court for an order designating the above-captioned

matter as a complex case for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv).” ECF No. 90 at 1. In its motion, the Government represents

that this case is unusual and complex in that the indicted conduct involves the prosecution

of a massive fraudulent scheme to obtain and misappropriate more than $250 million in

federal child nutrition program funds.

       The Government reports that the discovery in this matter is exceptionally

voluminous and includes millions of pages of investigative materials. “[T]he grand jury

issued more than 600 subpoenas,” and “[t]he responses to these subpoenas include financial

statements and other records for hundreds of bank accounts and credit card merchant

accounts.” ECF No. 90 at 3. “The [G]overnment interviewed hundreds of witnesses and

individuals involved in the fraud scheme, and will be producing hundreds of reports


                                            1
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 5




documenting those interviews.” ECF No. 90 at 3. “The [G]overnment obtained and

executed physical search warrants for 32 businesses and residences,” during which “the

[G]overnment seized approximately 380 electronic devices, including computers, laptops,

and cell phones.” ECF No. 90 at 3. “The [G]overnment also obtained warrants to search

more than 45 email accounts, through which the [G]overnment obtained more than 250,000

emails relevant to the investigation.” ECF No. 90 at 3.

        Currently, this case and related cases involve close to 50 defendants. 1 Under the

Speedy Trial Act, a defendant must “be tried within seventy days after being charged or

initially appearing, unless the running of time is stopped for reasons set forth under the

statute.” United States v. Izazaga-Pascacio, No. 14-cr-289 (SRN/JSM), 2016 WL 287062,

at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2016); see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); see also Zedner v. United States,

547 U.S. 489, 497-98 (2006). The Speedy Trial Act permits the exclusion of

                 [a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by
                 any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant
                 or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the
                 Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis
                 of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such
                 action outweigh the best interest of the public and the
                 defendant in a speedy trial.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).




1
 United States v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah et al., No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL) (8 defendants); United States v. Liban
Yasin Alishire et al., No. 22-cr-222 (NEB/TNL) (3 defendants); United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., No. 22-cr-
223 (NEB/TNL) (14 defendants); United States v. Qamar Ahmed Hassan et al., No. 22-cr-224 (NEB/TNL) (8
defendants); United States v. Sharmake Jama et al., No. 22-cr-225 (NEB/TNL) (6 defendants); United States v. Haji
Osman Salad et al., No. 22-cr-226 (NEB/TNL) (5 defendants); United States v. Hanna Marakegn, No. 22-cr-236
(NEB); United States v. Bekam Adissu Merdassa, No. 22-cr-237 (NEB); and United States v. Hadith Yusuf Ahmed,
No. 22-cr-238 (NEB).

                                                        2
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 5




        Factors to be considered in determining whether to grant such a continuance include,

among others:

                 (i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the
                 proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such
                 proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.

                 (ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the
                 number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the
                 existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is
                 unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
                 proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits
                 established by this section.

                 ...

                 (iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case
                 which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to
                 fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable
                 time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant
                 or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny
                 counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government
                 the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking
                 into account the exercise of due diligence.


Id. § 3161(h)(7)(B).

        After due consideration, the Court will designate this matter (as well as related

matters 2) as complex under § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Given the large volume of discovery, the

nature of the evidence collected, and the multiple issues involved in the discovery process,

as well as the sheer number of defendants, this case and the related cases are so complex



2
  United States v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah et al., No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL) (8 defendants); United States v. Liban
Yasin Alishire et al., No. 22-cr-222 (NEB/TNL) (3 defendants); United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., No. 22-cr-
223 (NEB/TNL) (14 defendants); United States v. Qamar Ahmed Hassan et al., No. 22-cr-224 (NEB/TNL) (8
defendants); United States v. Sharmake Jama et al., No. 22-cr-225 (NEB/TNL) (6 defendants); United States v. Haji
Osman Salad et al., No. 22-cr-226 (NEB/TNL) (5 defendants).

                                                        3
         CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 4 of 5




that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the

trial itself within the time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act. The Court further finds

that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends of justice served by making this

designation and granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and

Defendants in a speedy trial and the failure to grant a continuance would deny the parties

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence.

       Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

           1. The Government’s Motion to Designate Case as Complex Under the Speedy
              Trial Act, ECF No. 90, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

           2. This case is “complex” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

           3. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s September 23, 2022 Arraignment
              Orders, ECF Nos. 88, 89, are STRICKEN.

           4. On before November 4, 2022, the parties shall have met and conferred
              and submitted a proposed case management schedule for the completion of
              pretrial proceedings, to include disclosures by the Government; disclosures
              by Defendants; and the filing of pretrial motions, responses to such
              motions, notices of intent to call witnesses, and responsive notices of
              intent to call witnesses.

           5. The Court will thereafter issue a separate case management order, setting
              forth, among other things, pre-trial deadlines and the motions hearing date.




                                 [Continued on next page.]




                                              4
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 5 of 5




          6. The period of time from September 27 through November 4, 2022, shall
             be excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations in this case. See 18
             U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).



Date: September   29    , 2022                     s/ Tony N. Leung
                                            Tony N. Leung
                                            United States Magistrate Judge
                                            District of Minnesota


                                            United States v. Bock et al.
                                            Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL)




                                        5


File and source

File

95.pdf

Size

160,590 bytes

SHA-256

2ff332182af8e322e09bf3ac8caa2a0447faa9b46fbb4e717de4863bdd95c5fd

Our copy

95.pdf

Original

archive.org